Headlines:

• US Wants 20,000 Troops Arriving in Jordan
• Obama Voices Syria Chemical Weapons Concern to Putin
• Britain Reverses East of Suez Policy with Return to Military Bases in Gulf
• CIA Bribes Karzai: Millions in 'Ghost Money' Paid to Afghanistan President's Office

Details:

US Wants 20,000 Troops Arriving in Jordan

The Pentagon plans to relocate an effective military force beginning with 200 then up to 20 000 soldiers and station them in Jordan in order to be prepared for a possible military intervention in Syria. The first contingent, comprising 200 soldiers and to be sent from the 1st Armored Division from Fort Bliss, Texas, will be sent to Jordan to establish a "small headquarters" near the Jordanian border with Syria and plotting "possible military operations including rapid buildup of U.S. forces if the White House decides that a military intervention is necessary," the Los Angeles Times said citing government sources in the country. According to the source, this decision is the first step towards a possible involvement of Washington in the military conflict in Syria. The first contingent of the military depart this month to Jordan while "the majority will in May," adds the text. The newspaper says that the Pentagon "has also made plans to expand the force to 20,000 or more, if necessary, including a contingent for special operations carrying equipment to find stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria," U.S. defense units to protect Jordan's air space and conventional military units able to invade Syria if necessary." The Secretary of Defense of the United States, Chuck Hagel, ordered the movement of troops to Jordan, while making clear that both he and President Obama remain "deeply concerned to launch a military intervention in Syria." On the same day, the Chief of Joint Staff of the U.S. Army, General Martin Dempsey, warned that sending U.S. troops to Syria could have "unintended consequences" that could worsen the situation. However, in autumn 2012, Dempsey supported military intervention in Syria by the United States, along with the then director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), David Petraeus, the former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta and former Secretary of State of the country, Hillary Clinton.

Obama Voices Syria Chemical Weapons Concern to Putin

US President Barack Obama has voiced concern to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin about reports that Syria has used chemical weapons. In a phone conversation, the two leaders agreed to stay in touch on the issue, tasking their foreign ministers to hold further talks. The US earlier said it had "varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons had been used in Syria. The government in Damascus has denounced the claims as "lies". In a statement, the White House said on Monday that Mr Obama and Mr Putin talked on the phone on Monday, with the US leader "underscoring his concern over Syrian chemical weapons". Washington has repeatedly criticised Russia - along with China - for blocking tougher action against Syria in the UN Security Council, including new sanctions. Mr Putin and Mr Obama are scheduled to hold a face-to-face talks in June. Mr Obama last week promised a "vigorous investigation" into the issue. He warned that it would be a "game changer" for US policy if the reports about chemical weapons were to be proved true. Both the US and UK have pointed to emerging evidence that Syria has used weapons such as the nerve gas sarin. The Syrian government has dismissed claims that its forces have used chemical weapons, saying that the Western accusations "do not have any credibility". More than 70,000 people have been killed since fighting between Syrian forces and rebels erupted in March 2011.

Britain Reverses East of Suez Policy with Return to Military Bases in Gulf

Britain plans to restore a permanent military presence in the Gulf, basing land, air and naval forces in the region, according to a defence think tank with close ties to the armed forces. The withdrawal of all British troops from Afghanistan next year will create a unique opportunity to reverse the "East of Suez" decision that formed a landmark in Britain's retreat from imperial power, the Royal United Services Institute will say in a paper to be published today. Harold Wilson's government decided in 1968 to close a string of military bases in the Gulf, which had served as a linchpin of Empire for more than a century. The British withdrawal was completed in 1971, allowing the Gulf States to become independent. The think tank will say the Armed Forces are considering a partial reversal of the "East of Suez" decision. "The military intends to build up a strong shadow presence around the Gulf; not an evident imperial-style footprint, but a smart presence," writes Professor Michael Clarke, its director. "This may not yet be declared government policy," he writes. "But the UK appears to be approaching a decision point where a significant strategic reorientation of its defence and security towards the Gulf is both plausible and logical." Any new British presence would be focused on the United Arab Emirates, where the RAF is planning to use al-Minhad airbase, according to the think tank. The Royal Navy has always kept three minesweepers and at least one frigate or destroyer in the Gulf, supported by a small permanent staff in Bahrain. The paper suggests this flotilla could be reinforced. The Army plans to use its links with Oman's armed forces to base troops in the country. This would allow the use of "thousands of square miles of challenging terrain ideally suited to the training of military units in the skills of desert warfare". Moving equipment and personnel from Afghanistan to the Gulf would be cheaper than bringing them back to Britain, says the paper. In addition, Britain's commercial links with the Gulf are increasingly important. About 100,000 British citizens live in the UAE, with trade between the two countries of £14 billion last year. Qatar is now Britain's biggest source of liquefied natural gas. Any deployment would also create a showcase for military equipment, it adds. Two assumptions lay behind the "East of Suez" decision: the oil price, then $4 per barrel, would stay at that level, and Iran, then under the Shah, would remain a reliable ally. The demise of both certainties and the ever-increasing wealth of the Gulf help explain why, if the institute's paper is correct, that decision is being quietly reviewed.

CIA Bribes Karzai: Millions In 'Ghost Money' Paid To Afghanistan President's Office

Tens of millions of U.S. dollars in cash were delivered by the CIA in suitcases, backpacks and plastic shopping bags to the office of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for more than a decade, the New York Times says, citing current and former advisers to the Afghan leader. The so-called "ghost money" was meant to buy influence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but instead fuelled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington's exit strategy from Afghanistan, the newspaper quoted U.S. officials as saying. "The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan", one American official said, "was the United States." The CIA declined to comment on the report and the U.S. State Department did not immediately comment. The New York Times did not publish any comment from Karzai or his office. "We called it 'ghost money'," Khalil Roman, who served as Karzai's chief of staff from 2002 until 2005, told the New York Times. "It came in secret and it left in secret." In response to the report, Karzai told reporters in Helsinki after a meeting with Finnish leaders that the office of the National Security Council had been receiving support from the U.S. government for the past 10 years. He said the amounts had been "not big" and the funds were used for various purposes including assistance for the wounded. "It's multi-purpose assistance," he said, without commenting on the report's claims the funds fuelled corruption and empowered warlords. U.S. and Afghan officials familiar with the payments were quoted as saying that the main goal in providing the cash was to maintain access to Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the CIA's influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan's highly centralised government. Much of the money went to warlords and politicians, many with ties to the drug trade and in some cases the Taliban, The New York Times said. U.S. and Afghan officials were quoted as saying the CIA supported the same patronage networks that U.S. diplomats and law enforcement agents struggled to dismantle, leaving the government in the grip of organised crime.

Abu Hashim